Teen faces expulsion after brining stun-gun to school to fend off bullies

[ElPatron]

snip

Let's clear some stuff up.

First, you have no idea where Zimmerman was carrying his weapon, stop pretending he was reaching for it before he actually got attacked.

Second, when I mentioned the bathtub I meant that you retaliate as soon as the proverbial crap hits the fan. Did you get the part where someone walked up to you and bashed your head against a bathtub laying around? It's an extremely violent behavior. And you retaliate BEFORE you are incapacitated, nobody can judge the seriousness of an injury in the back of their head in a fraction of a second - you don't want to become vulnerable. It's perfectly reasonable to shoot (or make use of any object laying around) to fuck the attacker up before you pass out.

Third, the mugshot:

Spoiler

Just look at his mouth - his smirk does not extend like in the photo released by the media. You can see in the other REAL photo that his mouth is much shorter - and don't blame the lights because people's mouths to not stretch under different lights.

NUMBER FOUR. The machete guy. The video had a title that was a random string of numbers. It had no description (if you want, you can ask on /k/ on 4chan because they usually have the .gif laying around).

Beanbags can cause penetration from close range and kill a person. Even the plastic wadding alone can punch trough several inches of flesh. It's stupidly retarded to use them because some are rated for 10 yards, others for 25 yards, etc etc.


Numero Cinco... Never point at someone's head. I never said it was part of the damned rules of safety. It's common sense. If you point at someone's head and shoot, it will be interpreted as an execution. Someone defending himself or another person should not have time to point at extremities. If they do, they are implying that it was not an emergency and that there were no lives at stake. So if you shoot someone's head, you better be at home and firing in the dark.


Sixth. Lethality. You can die from a single shot of .22 and survive after being shot by 9x19mm nine times. When you get shot by 5.56, it can fragment and create a huge cavity in your chest, or just punch trough and make a needle wound you can easily survive in a battlefield. Point is, don't aim at the head because YOU'LL HAVE A HARD TIME POINTING AT IT, A HARD TIME HITTING IT, AND A HARD TIME STRIKING AN ALMOST PERPENDICULAR HIT ON THE SKULL. We are talking about handguns, very short sight radius and very short aiming times.

SIEBEN! "Usama Bin Laden". Not only you refuse to use the "O", you also have absolutely no proof he was responsible for 9/11. He was involved with the goddamned Taliban, that means he is FAIR GAME during a war. I don't care who did 9/11, I have NEVER seen Bin Laden's cave full of WTC blueprints.

It could have been ANYONE planning the attack, and Osama was just the "face". If you're mocking me for NOT GIVING THE SLIGHTEST FUCK about who actually planned, why don't you show me ACTUAL evidence of Bin Laden's guilt?

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

*cracks knuckles, then neck* Oh, boy...

First of all, the kid has a right to defend himself. After all, 6 on 1 odds is ridiculous by any standards. However, he was in the wrong by the school rules' standards, and he was punished thusly. The bullies were in the wrong, too, and should have been punished if they weren't.

As for the school ignoring his requests to help...welcome to politics. The school board found it easier to ignore one student than to punish six on simply the kid's word. It sucks, but is somewhat understandable. And I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me for the school to suggest not dressing in a way to be bullied if he wants to stop being bullied for it. It's not like they are asking him to stop being gay, or stop being black. It's an easy solution. I see no indication the kid tried that.

Legally, it's a different issue. The kid has a legal right to self-defense. But legal rights and school rules do not go hand in hand.

Edit: And for those who think I'm full of it, or just don't understand, I was bullied from fourth grade all the way up to middle school graduation. The only reason it didn't go past there is because of the trio that bullied me, one moved, one got held back, and the third grew up and apologized for all the crap he'd put me through (and I do believe he was being honest, simply due to the fact that he chose to say it just between the two of us). In high school, I was bullied a bit, but I made friends who stood by me and helped me get past it. Hell, in one case, I had to help one friend hold back another one of my friends to keep him from going after some people throwing rocks at us. We reported it to school officials.

His case is a bit different, but I somehow managed to make it all the way through school while only ending up in one fight (and could have avoided that one if I was heartless enough to let a friend get beat up). And I was a 6'1, 155 pound nerd, not exactly someone who could defend himself. There is always another way. And my mother would have never even CONSIDERED sending me to school with a stun gun. She'd have talked to the school officials, and if that didn't work, take me out of school.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Let's clear some stuff up.

First, you have no idea where Zimmerman was carrying his weapon, stop pretending he was reaching for it before he actually got attacked.

I didn't actually say where he specifically held it, I said in general he could have revealed his carrying status by his actions, the waistband was noting but a possible example.

It's quite startling how much of my argument you are ignoring. Like how I propositioned why didn't this supposedly reasoned and Neighbourhood Watch Captain not just cherrilly wave to this stranger, identify himself as the Neighbourhood Watch Captain, and make polite enquiry into where he was going in this gated community.

Carrying guns and using lethal force comes with great responsibility for tact and restraint.

Second, when I mentioned the bathtub I meant that you retaliate as soon as the proverbial crap hits the fan. Did you get the part where someone walked up to you and bashed your head against a bathtub laying around? It's an extremely violent behavior. And you retaliate BEFORE you are incapacitated, nobody can judge the seriousness of an injury in the back of their head in a fraction of a second - you don't want to become vulnerable. It's perfectly reasonable to shoot (or make use of any object laying around) to fuck the attacker up before you pass out.

Proverbs are useless, the point is bare hand punches are not considered lethal weapons. The only way they can kill is by knocking someone off balance so they lose consciousness, that is not the case. Assault with hands is only considered lethal force when they have a HUGE strength advantage, like a larger man strangling a smaller woman. Not some kid throwing punches that weren't even hard enough to bruise.

Your right to self-defence does not extend to paranoid over-reaction. And absolutely KEY AND FUNDAMENTAL the lethal-force aspect of self-defence law is the term "reasonable". Is there are REASON for thinking that your life was in immediate danger of death or dismemberment.

The self-defence from bare knuckles is force that in almost all circumstances would not be lethal. Don't go on a tangent about definitions of "less than lethal", shoving and knocking someone away is very unlikely to kill. And finally bringing back on topic, it would extend to a tazer that induces and electric shock that has been tested hundreds and hundreds of times without lethal result, so much that you have to have been tazered yourself before you can buy one.

Self-defence is not an extreme all-or-nothing. Just because defence is allowed, that doesn't mean ALL amount of force is allowed.

You misuse the term "perfectly reasonable" there is nothing perfect yet alone reason to shooting some puny kid who punches you.

You missed the point of my bathroom-slip example, it was how he could not have been hit very hard on the head as there was such a minor scratch as I took a not remotely concussive blow to the head and got a massive cut evidence by extensive bleeding that Zimmerman didn't have.

Third, the mugshot:

Spoiler

Just look at his mouth - his smirk does not extend like in the photo released by the media. You can see in the other REAL photo that his mouth is much shorter - and don't blame the lights because people's mouths to not stretch under different lights.

OK, now you have completely backtracked. That photo shows that your claim the widely depicted photo of that killer being supposedly photoshoped picture is actually totally unaltered. The centre image is 100% identical to the one you claimed earlier was photoshopped

Either side of it are two very obvious examples of photoshopping at work. Undeniably obvious with a hyper-symmetrical lips.

That image right there, all that proves is that the program photoshop exists... it DISPROVES that the media actually deliberately photoshopped the image to make him look any more or less scary.

So where the hell is this going? This establishes the media DID NOT make a mass-murderer look worse in his mugshot than he actually did, and this is no way relevant to the issue of self-defence.

NUMBER FOUR. The machete guy. The video had a title that was a random string of numbers. It had no description (if you want, you can ask on /k/ on 4chan because they usually have the .gif laying around).

Beanbags can cause penetration from close range and kill a person. Even the plastic wadding alone can punch trough several inches of flesh. It's stupidly retarded to use them because some are rated for 10 yards, others for 25 yards, etc etc.

I did say beanbag-rounds AND tazers and other low-lethal weapons. The police would of course use MORE than common-sense and have Beanbag round for the ideal range, with tazers and riot shields as well.

Numero Cinco... Never point at someone's head. I never said it was part of the damned rules of safety. It's common sense. If you point at someone's head and shoot, it will be interpreted as an execution. Someone defending himself or another person should not have time to point at extremities. If they do, they are implying that it was not an emergency and that there were no lives at stake. So if you shoot someone's head, you better be at home and firing in the dark.

Common sense says the earth is flat, and the Sun revolves around the stationary earth. This is what common sense said till people actually used reason and logic with the available evidence to see that was not true.

Common sense is NOT reasoned logic.

Such a headshot would not be interpreted as execution as I'm only going to fire if they pull a weapon. I EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY STATED even if I caught someone committing the most heinous crime I would put a gun to their head BUT NOT PULL THE TRIGGER! Specifically, (following golden rules of firearms) I'd have my finger OUT the trigger guard to avoid flinching and firing.

Reason and logic says in the scenario I explained - catching a man raping someone and coming up behind them - then I WOULD have time to hit the head. The reason for getting that close is the assailant's proximity to the victim, from a distance mag-dumping centre-mass they could easilly use her as a human shield or just be hit by a stray bullet (rule number 3).

"Common sense" is NO VIRTUE! Stop and THINK more than common.

Sixth. Lethality. You can die from a single shot of .22 and survive after being shot by 9x19mm nine times. When you get shot by 5.56, it can fragment and create a huge cavity in your chest, or just punch trough and make a needle wound you can easily survive in a battlefield. Point is, don't aim at the head because YOU'LL HAVE A HARD TIME POINTING AT IT, A HARD TIME HITTING IT, AND A HARD TIME STRIKING AN ALMOST PERPENDICULAR HIT ON THE SKULL. We are talking about handguns, very short sight radius and very short aiming times.

Good thing I never said aiming for the head then. No sights with the scenario I have actually described.

SIEBEN! "Usama Bin Laden". Not only you refuse to use the "O", you also have absolutely no proof he was responsible for 9/11. He was involved with the goddamned Taliban, that means he is FAIR GAME during a war. I don't care who did 9/11, I have NEVER seen Bin Laden's cave full of WTC blueprints.

It could have been ANYONE planning the attack, and Osama was just the "face". If you're mocking me for NOT GIVING THE SLIGHTEST FUCK about who actually planned, why don't you show me ACTUAL evidence of Bin Laden's guilt?

I don't spell it "osama" because that like spelling Allan Rickman as "Ellen Rickman". Although written in Arabic script, it is normally spelled Usama when written with romanised characters as that is closer to the actual sound of the name. The FBI have always called him Usama Bin Laden since the 1990's they first started tracking him. I have known a few Usamas, (it's a common name like Peter or Jim) and they spell it that way. You can blame the media for spelling it as Osama. Also I've found less people mix Usama with Obama than with "Osama".

I think you want to read up on the reason for America's involvement in Afghanistan, I hope you aren't using your "common sense" again. Common sense is not fundamental logic, it is simplified assumption. Please, read up for yourself, you were after all only 8 years old during the 9/11 attacks so you probably couldn't make much sense of the news, so just read up on the history of it.

 

[ResonanceSD]

The obvious solution to all of this bullying is to loosen gun regulations. People will think twice about picking on someone if they think they're packing heat!

Sincerely, the NRA.

P.S. Buy more guns.

The clear solution is to start a playground arms race.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'd say that removing the kid would be correct in this case. Sure, bullies are bad. So is bringing a weapon to school to resolve the problem.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I don't spell it "osama" because that like spelling Allan Rickman as "Ellen Rickman". Although written in Arabic script, it is normally spelled Usama when written with romanised characters as that is closer to the actual sound of the name. The FBI have always called him Usama Bin Laden since the 1990's they first started tracking him. I have known a few Usamas, (it's a common name like Peter or Jim) and they spell it that way. You can blame the media for spelling it as Osama. Also I've found less people mix Usama with Obama than with "Osama".

Small note: Arabic names are spelled phonetically and thus there are any number of valid spellings. The most commonly accepted spelling of Usama is the one with a 'u' even though an o is just as accurate. The reason is simple enough: when one analyst writes "Usama Bin Landen", you want to reduce ambiguity. Thus if one has a person named "Mohammad" but the person who files the initial reporting wrote "Muhammed", future spellings of that individual's name would be "Muhammed".

I suppose that's a terribly long way of saying that the spelling is simply fixed in most cases to ensure that when someone says a person's name, there is less chance someone else will wonder which particular person they mean. It also makes sorting through databases with the aid of automation faster.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't spell it "osama" because that like spelling Allan Rickman as "Ellen Rickman". Although written in Arabic script, it is normally spelled Usama when written with romanised characters as that is closer to the actual sound of the name. The FBI have always called him Usama Bin Laden since the 1990's they first started tracking him. I have known a few Usamas, (it's a common name like Peter or Jim) and they spell it that way. You can blame the media for spelling it as Osama. Also I've found less people mix Usama with Obama than with "Osama".

Small note: Arabic names are spelled phonetically and thus there are any number of valid spellings. The most commonly accepted spelling of Usama is the one with a 'u' even though an o is just as accurate. The reason is simple enough: when one analyst writes "Usama Bin Landen", you want to reduce ambiguity. Thus if one has a person named "Mohammad" but the person who files the initial reporting wrote "Muhammed", future spellings of that individual's name would be "Muhammed".

I suppose that's a terribly long way of saying that the spelling is simply fixed in most cases to ensure that when someone says a person's name, there is less chance someone else will wonder which particular person they mean. It also makes sorting through databases with the aid of automation faster.

Well the first English language analysis to track Usama Bin Laden as a public policy was the FBI (rather than the CIA secretly) and they spelled his name "Usama" and they have always spelled it that way, they were the analysts who got there first.

It was the media who broke that consistency, I remember in the time after 9/11 it was an even spread between reporting his name as Usama and Osama, but I think Osama prevailed as it is marginally easier for English speakers to pronounce, though pronounce less correctly than Usama. I mean they pronounce it like an Irish surname, as in Dara O'Sama which is way off.

 

[ElPatron]

OK, now you have completely backtracked. That photo shows that your claim the widely depicted photo of that killer being supposedly photoshoped picture is actually totally unaltered. The centre image is 100% identical to the one you claimed earlier was photoshopped

Either side of it are two very obvious examples of photoshopping at work. Undeniably obvious with a hyper-symmetrical lips.

"Reading comprehension, motherlover, do you have it?"

I am saying that the middle photo is the one released by the media, and the photos on the sides were doctored.

One completely toned down the shadows and made Jared look like he is on the remaining photos. The other revamped the effects up.

The best way to tell them apart is the smirk. The media photo shows and unrealistic, disfigured smirk.

Bathtub. You asked a doctor about the bleeding. Well, I am not a doctor, like a lot of people. But not even a doctor can tell the seriousness of an injury when their ass is being kicked.

I am not talking about shooting someone saying "Come at me, bro!" - to my knowledge most people who carry strive to avoid pathetic confrontations. I have also known people who flashed the gun at someone looking for trouble (which is awful, because it gives CCW holders a bad image) to avoid getting into fist fights.

The problem is - bare fists are perfectly fine to kill, it's just that almost nobody can do it fast enough. However, they can put humans unconscious or just temporarily incapacitated without much hassle. And that isn't good when you have a gun on you.

Headshots. How long does it take to put a finger on the trigger? If you put a gun on someone's head, they can bump the slide out of battery with just a swing of the neck while you are busy processing what the hell is going on. If he's lucky, you'll have to slam the slide into battery, if he is REALLY lucky, you will get a stovepipe.

Your gun is now just an ineffective club until you clear the malfunction.

Beanbags. They can still penetrate and kill. They can also break ribs and just create massive wounds in the chest. They will kill if they hit the head or neck. They can also disrupt the heartbeat. Plus, a shotgun is a somewhat long firearm and aiming is hard. I don't realistically expect a police officer in some latin american country (where this whole ordeal happened) to be trained and skilled enough in aiming a shotgun in a stressful situation - such as a man running up to you with a machete - I live in goddamned Europe and know for a fact that our police forces are undertrained compared with other European countries, even ones where they rarely use firearms at all.

I think you want to read up on the reason for America's involvement in Afghanistan, I hope you aren't using your "common sense" again. Common sense is not fundamental logic, it is simplified assumption. Please, read up for yourself, you were after all only 8 years old during the 9/11 attacks so you probably couldn't make much sense of the news, so just read up on the history of it.

And I could argue that you don't know shit about the 1800's because you were not born back then.

First of all, I could understand the news perfectly before I started school. I learnt how to read when I was 4. And so did a lot of people of my age. I don't know what that means, but I think that it can be argued that I wasn't born in a generation of complete retards.

Second, the 9/11 interrupted my lunch (GMT) while I was watching cartoons. I couldn't watch my cartoons, so you bet that I paid attention to what is happening. Just an hour later everyone was talking about it in school.

For the past decade I read it all. And I mean all. In case you haven't noticed, I am a fairly militaristic person. I researched about the official story and how it was flawed, the WTC7 collapsing. There was a 5 year phase in which I became a conspiracy theorist.

Just because something happened before you were born or when you were a child, doesn't mean that all video evidence, records and literature vanished. We have a fairly good idea of how the 1800's were even though there isn't anyone who has lived trough all of it still alive.

So my point is. What does it matter if Bin Laden was the responsible? It happened. What does it matter if Bin Laden died from sickness years ago and got replaced by a double? I have no proof on my lap to tell. All we know for sure is that he was responsible for deaths before 9/11.

So instead of mocking me for not having a clue, do the same thing as me: not genuinely be assed about it. Really. What the fuck do you have to gain in acknowledging Bin Laden's guilt? Nothing.

Absolutely nothing. There is a good chance OBL is dead anyway (assassinated or not). I have asked you for irrefutable proof of Bin Laden's involvement and so far you have only mocked me. Who knows if he was just the "face" of Al Qaeda?

So far the actual irrefutable proof is classified. How nice. The video in which Bin Laden is supposed to be talking about the attacks has been criticized for mistranslation.

My ultimate opinion? War. It's all I have to say. It was a covert targeted killing. What is so wrong about that? It's not Predator drones killing civilians ("suspects") on the street, and it's not FEMA camps.

 

[runic knight]

In regards to the neighborhood watch/black kid media story topic.

The watchman was in the wrong from the start for chasing the kid like he did. From his perspective he saw a hooded individual walking around at night. The kid on the other hand saw a larger man eying him then chasing him down. Being the watchman was pursuing the kid, he was the one initiating their interaction and though his own carelessness in his behavior, threatened the kid with what could have easily be seen as some child rapist chasing him. Honestly, I'd deck that sort of son of a ***** too if they can't at least call out who they are and what they want before chasing after me. And furthermore, given both his job as watchman, his ignoring the 911 operator and his carried weapon, he damn well should have known better. So he was in the wrong every which way.

To put it simpler, I guess the logic goes like this. The watchman thinks the kid was guilty because he ran, where the kid ran because he saw someone starting to chase him. Who is really in the right here?



As for Osama, I thought there was the released video footage of him taking credit for it? Some complaints about translation, yes, but nothing I have run across of those complaints change the taking credit part. Now, I might not have a lot of experience with how things like this go down, but usually when you have a murder followed by a video of someone taking credit for it, you at least look into it enough to see if possible and then head out to pick them up and take them in for questioning. When you have to go through a shoot-out that results in his death in the attempt, well...
There might not be irrefutable proof of his guilt. But fortunately that is not how guilt is determined. Only proven beyond any and all reasonable doubt. And between the connection of the terrorist to the organization he was heading, the personal claim of responsibility by him, the gathered intel from captured members and all other little bits like that, it would not be hard to make that case. At this point it is like you are looking at a case where a man's wife was murdered, he signed a confession, had the insurance claim filed the day before and was well known to hate and be violent towards her and you are still scratching your chin and asking "well, what if he didn't?". At this point it would require some pretty impressive evidence to raise the question beyond more then just empty conspiracy theory.


In regards to force and defence.
People have a right to defend themselves up to and until the threat to them ceases. This has been shown in a number of trials involving assault, home invasion and even in times of war. The basic idea is that once a threat is neutralized, you do not have permission to exact revenge. Nor do you have permission to use excessive force in defense of yourself. This is hard to judge and is a case by case ideal, which is as it should be, but generally the lines fall that if there was not a threat to the life and well being of someone, use of lethal force in "defense" is still considered unjustified. I recall a case of a bar fight, where a man was shot after he punched someone. Unjustified use of force there.
Tieing back to the watchman incident, being he was threatening the kid through his actions, the kid was defending himself from a perceived threat with suitable force (this being punching/kicking/whatever). There was miniscule chance of killing the stronger larger man and seemed to be part of a desire to just get away. The watchman, on the other hand, pursued the kid, threatened him and then killed him in retaliation (not defense, as we established him being the aggressor).

Back to the topic on hand, the kid brought a tried and tested non-lethal tool to defend himself, and used it when accosted by 6 bullies, a believably life-threatening situation. Aside from the added numbers meaning more punches and kicks, there is a mob mentality aspect of such numbers and a far greater chance of both not being able to escape (thus his well being was suitably threatened) and that they would not be able to stop themselves if it endangered his life (life threatened). In defense of this threat, he discharged a tazer. In the air. There is not a way in hell this can ethically be seen as unjustifiable force in defense when there was no force used against them in the first place (merely threat of it).
There is an aspect of legal justification that can be discussed. If a tazer counts as a firearm when outlined in school policies, if it expressly forbids them with expulsion compared to a more interpretative answer to what punishment is deserved.
There is also an aspect of how the school dropped the ball here and or if indeed it was there issue to address. When looking at company policies in the working world concerning bullying, and how they tend to have a no bullshit side to them (this being, all claims are investigated), I think that the school would have responsibility to look into matters and address them. And given how companies in the working world don't tolerate that sort of shit, because of liability and all, I see no reason why schools, who are such hard asses when it comes to the kid defending himself, couldn't have used that sort of mentality against the bullies, with suspensions and threat of expulsion, similar to a job using threat of firing/legal ramifications to the grown world parallel. But there seems to be an unspoken support of the actions of the bullies by the school's staff, or at least some, so I do have to wonder...

 

[Treblaine]

OK, now you have completely backtracked. That photo shows that your claim the widely depicted photo of that killer being supposedly photoshoped picture is actually totally unaltered. The centre image is 100% identical to the one you claimed earlier was photoshopped

Either side of it are two very obvious examples of photoshopping at work. Undeniably obvious with a hyper-symmetrical lips.

"Reading comprehension, motherlover, do you have it?"

I am saying that the middle photo is the one released by the media, and the photos on the sides were doctored.

One completely toned down the shadows and made Jared look like he is on the remaining photos. The other revamped the effects up.

The best way to tell them apart is the smirk. The media photo shows and unrealistic, disfigured smirk.

Yeah, but so what!??!!??? You brought up that photo to show the media misrepresenting a killer with photoshop. Now you are saying the media used a version that was not in any way photoshopped??

Who cares if some guy somewhere photoshopped a mugshot of a killer to make him look tlrntely more or less scary, and not deceive none by labelling ech as shopped???

PS: You know why the medi used that old fat mugshot of Zimmerman??? You know, from his previous counts of assault? Because he wasn't even arrested on the night of Martin's murder so there was no mugshot more recent. The Zimmerman family weren't going to release any photos of him, and other sources of photos could be unreliable so there was no conceit to deliberately deceive there.

Bathtub. You asked a doctor about the bleeding. Well, I am not a doctor, like a lot of people. But not even a doctor can tell the seriousness of an injury when their ass is being kicked.

I am not talking about shooting someone saying "Come at me, bro!" - to my knowledge most people who carry strive to avoid pathetic confrontations. I have also known people who flashed the gun at someone looking for trouble (which is awful, because it gives CCW holders a bad image) to avoid getting into fist fights.

The problem is - bare fists are perfectly fine to kill, it's just that almost nobody can do it fast enough. However, they can put humans unconscious or just temporarily incapacitated without much hassle. And that isn't good when you have a gun on you.

You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying, I am not talking about HIM judging from the WOUND! I am saying thE wound being so trivial is proof of how minor the assault was, he could not have been close to dazed by such a blow. I'm saying he couldn't possibly felt he was being beaten to unconsciousness so as to justify shooting.

Zimmerman clearly did not try to avoid a confrontation. Be absolutely clear about what I am arguing, I have been consistent in saying what THIS INDIVIDUAL has done wrong, NOT ALL CCW LICENCE HOLDERS!!!! Frankly I find zimmermans conduct completely at odds with the ideals of CCW licence, the right to self defence and the Right to Arms. Any 2A supporters that side with George zimmerman are making a huge mistake.

Headshots. How long does it take to put a finger on the trigger? If you put a gun on someone's head, they can bump the slide out of battery with just a swing of the neck while you are busy processing what the hell is going on. If he's lucky, you'll have to slam the slide into battery, if he is REALLY lucky, you will get a stovepipe.

Your gun is now just an ineffective club until you clear the malfunction.

It takes less time for one to consciously move finger onto trigger than they can possibly make any offensive move. The point of having finger off trigger is following the golden rules, you don't put your finger on the trigger till you are consiously making the decision to fire, or else a flinch or a jolt may have a negligent discharge. I heard of a cop who got into trouble for this, holding a suspect at gunpoint with his finger on the trigger.

In the scenario I outlined, the assailant snapping their head as hard as they could would only move the weapon slightly out of battery for a fraction of a second, and doing such a thing will throw them off balance and they couldn't be reaching for any concealed weapon on the process, then is the time to use force to get the perpetrator off his victim so that I wouldn't have to be so close to avoid accidentally shooting the victim of the assault

Beanbags. They can still penetrate and kill. They can also break ribs and just create massive wounds in the chest. They will kill if they hit the head or neck. They can also disrupt the heartbeat. Plus, a shotgun is a somewhat long firearm and aiming is hard. I don't realistically expect a police officer in some latin american country (where this whole ordeal happened) to be trained and skilled enough in aiming a shotgun in a stressful situation - such as a man running up to you with a machete - I live in goddamned Europe and know for a fact that our police forces are undertrained compared with other European countries, even ones where they rarely use firearms at all.

Yes, there is a possibility of death but a very low possibility, it is much more proportional use of force in order to affect his arrest. They are accurate enough that you can close enough while well out of rush-attack range, to still accurately aim for the lower extremities so they fall, then you rush him with one guy grappling every limb or drive stun him till he drops the weapon.

I expect all police officers in all parts of the world to have the training to use firearms accurately in a stressful situation. Policing is a profession for professionals, not some average shmoe with a gun. And again, I was just suggesting one of many non lethal ways this machete madmn could have been disarmed nd apprehended.

I think you want to read up on the reason for America's involvement in Afghanistan, I hope you aren't using your "common sense" again. Common sense is not fundamental logic, it is simplified assumption. Please, read up for yourself, you were after all only 8 years old during the 9/11 attacks so you probably couldn't make much sense of the news, so just read up on the history of it.

And I could argue that you don't know shit about the 1800's because you were not born back then.

First of all, I could understand the news perfectly before I started school. I learnt how to read when I was 4. And so did a lot of people of my age. I don't know what that means, but I think that it can be argued that I wasn't born in a generation of complete retards.

Second, the 9/11 interrupted my lunch (GMT) while I was watching cartoons. I couldn't watch my cartoons, so you bet that I paid attention to what is happening. Just an hour later everyone was talking about it in school.

For the past decade I read it all. And I mean all. In case you haven't noticed, I am a fairly militaristic person. I researched about the official story and how it was flawed, the WTC7 collapsing. There was a 5 year phase in which I became a conspiracy theorist.

Just because something happened before you were born or when you were a child, doesn't mean that all video evidence, records and literature vanished. We have a fairly good idea of how the 1800's were even though there isn't anyone who has lived trough all of it still alive.

So my point is. What does it matter if Bin Laden was the responsible? It happened. What does it matter if Bin Laden died from sickness years ago and got replaced by a double? I have no proof on my lap to tell. All we know for sure is that he was responsible for deaths before 9/11.

So instead of mocking me for not having a clue, do the same thing as me: not genuinely be assed about it. Really. What the fuck do you have to gain in acknowledging Bin Laden's guilt? Nothing.

Absolutely nothing. There is a good chance OBL is dead anyway (assassinated or not). I have asked you for irrefutable proof of Bin Laden's involvement and so far you have only mocked me. Who knows if he was just the "face" of Al Qaeda?

So far the actual irrefutable proof is classified. How nice. The video in which Bin Laden is supposed to be talking about the attacks has been criticized for mistranslation.

My ultimate opinion? War. It's all I have to say. It was a covert targeted killing. What is so wrong about that? It's not Predator drones killing civilians ("suspects") on the street, and it's not FEMA camps.

Runic Knight dealt with this off topic subject of usama bin laden best. I just made a fairly safe example of a very guilty person who never got any trial.

 

[ElPatron]

Who cares if some guy somewhere photoshopped a mugshot of a killer to make him look tlrntely more or less scary, and not deceive none by labelling ech as shopped???

It's dishonest, it's the actual polar opposite of journalism. It's lying, pushing your own agenda, etc.

I am saying thE wound being so trivial is proof of how minor the assault was, he could not have been close to dazed by such a blow.

I live in a Socialist Republic of Europe, and a "trivial" wound on the head is enough reason to make use of self-defense to it's fullest extent without being in trouble.

In case you didn't notice, I am clinging on that "slipping on the bathtub" deal. If you are not yet unconscious, you'll want to be on trial by twelve and not carried by six. If you think that after being banged against a random bathtub on the street you'll be able to fight or run away then be my guest.

Any 2A supporters that side with George zimmerman are making a huge mistake.

Okay, and I respect that. My argument goes beyond the 2A or the Stand Your Ground Policy.

Mall cops (actual police officers, not Paul Blarts) have pepper spray on their front, batton at 9 o'clock and Glock on the 3 o'clock. If I jump at one and punch his head, he will go for the Glock.

No way is he going to try and use the batton with his left hand, and no way he is going to reach a pepper spray bottle I am sitting on.

It takes less time for one to consciously move finger onto trigger than they can possibly make any offensive move.

Whatever, Bill Hickok. All I am saying is that you don't want to be disarmed, not that you must have a finger on the trigger.

In the scenario I outlined, the assailant snapping their head as hard as they could would only move the weapon slightly out of battery for a fraction of a second

Luckily, I have an airsoft pistol with a metal slide.

I suggest learning how springs work. The slide won't have enough forward momentum because the spring is almost at it's natural length. Ergo, the "delta x" will be so small that the force applied by the spring will be almost null.

You know about press checks? You pull the slide slightly back to make a visual check and then you force the slide into battery? Or in the AR15, you use the forward assist to make sure the bolt is fully locked. Same principle applies.

I was able to knock the metal slide far enough to cause a failure to extract with a snap of the neck. While I was at it, I could also flip a knife open with one hand.

I can control my balance at my age, thank you.

Point is, never point at someone's head. It's not worth it. You have a ranged weapon and the advantage of surprise to aim. Don't screw it up by going hand-to-hand.

I expect all police officers in all parts of the world to have the training to use firearms accurately in a stressful situation.

We are talking about Europe here.

Our economy is shit. Police officers don't get paid a lot. They might not have the chance to go to a firing range for years. Ammunition is so much expensive compared to the US (several times higher, it would be cheaper to practice with premium self-defense ammo in the US than here with overpriced full metal jacketed El Cheapo rounds.) that police officers don't get paid enough to practice on their own. This was the norm before the economical crisis, I can't bring myself to think that their situation is better right now.

And while they might have some practice with their carry weapon, they might not be with a shotgun. Longer sight radius means more time to aim at close range, specially at extremities.

When it comes to "combat" (hurr durr, I mean actual firefights or riot control, not military) or home defense a shotgun is probably the finest option you have.

When it comes to combat shorter than the actual barrel length of your shotgun, draw a pistol.

Runic Knight dealt with this off topic subject of usama bin laden best. I just made a fairly safe example of a very guilty person who never got any trial.

1. He was not in American soil.
2. He was not an American citizen.
3. Guilty or not for 9/11, he was a wanted terrorist and he was responsible for several deaths and bombings.
4. He was one of the top dogs in an organization that was at war.
5. "Allegedly" he was in a fortified compound with armed personnel - and he might have had explosives or weapons on him.


Sorry for not caring for his death. Did he deserve a trial? Meh. It is war. I know that the US stepped into Pakistani soil to get him, but it's not the same thing as people being sent to FEMA camps or having Predator drones killing American citizens.

 

[ElPatron]

snip

About Osama: I already stated that I used to be a conspiracy theorist during my teens. However, I am not saying that I am sure of his guilt nor his innocence. I am just saying that I just don't care anymore. I will never find the truth by myself surfing the web searching for the dots and connecting them by myself. He was killed, and it was justified.

About Zimmerman: you have to take into account that a 911 dispatcher is not a police officer and there is nothing that forces you to follow their orders. From the phone records Zimmerman stated that he was following Treyvon, the dispatcher said that they didn't need him to, to which Zimmerman replied "Okay".

I am not sure what you point is by trying to reenact the scene when ever the prosecution admitted they can't prove that Zimmerman disobeyed the dispatcher.

Saying that Treyvon had the right to "stand his ground" and beating Zimmerman is the same thing as saying that Zimmerman could have seen a black kid with a hoodie on and saying to himself "I feel threatened!" - and shooting him on the spot.

So far it seems that Treyvon initiated the altercation and he actually carried out a violent action - that is what makes it justifiable to stand your ground. Unless it is proven that Zimmerman tackled the kid or whatever I can't say I have anything against him.

 

[Treblaine]

Who cares if some guy somewhere photoshopped a mugshot of a killer to make him look tlrntely more or less scary, and not deceive none by labelling ech as shopped???

It's dishonest, it's the actual polar opposite of journalism. It's lying, pushing your own agenda, etc.

It's not dishonest, the photoshopped pictures were labelled. No deception.

It isn't journalism either, it's some anonymous guy on the internet demonstrating how you CAN use photoshop, not how Journalists ACTUALLY depict photos.

I am saying thE wound being so trivial is proof of how minor the assault was, he could not have been close to dazed by such a blow.

I live in a Socialist Republic of Europe, and a "trivial" wound on the head is enough reason to make use of self-defense to it's fullest extent without being in trouble.

In case you didn't notice, I am clinging on that "slipping on the bathtub" deal. If you are not yet unconscious, you'll want to be on trial by twelve and not carried by six. If you think that after being banged against a random bathtub on the street you'll be able to fight or run away then be my guest.

Socialist Republic of Europe is a crude euphemism for which country? And if this is true (and I doubt it) this is an appeal to authority, not a justification. If country X does anything any way, how does that justify it?

Yes, I DO think I'll be able function after such a head blow, as I DID!

Any 2A supporters that side with George zimmerman are making a huge mistake.

Okay, and I respect that. My argument goes beyond the 2A or the Stand Your Ground Policy.

Mall cops (actual police officers, not Paul Blarts) have pepper spray on their front, batton at 9 o'clock and Glock on the 3 o'clock. If I jump at one and punch his head, he will go for the Glock.

No way is he going to try and use the batton with his left hand, and no way he is going to reach a pepper spray bottle I am sitting on.

Uuuuh, WHAT SOURCE do you have on cops ALWAYS shooting unarmed men at the slightest indication of violence? And in what country? And WHAT kind of justification would that be?!?!?

WHY OH WHY would they have a baton and pepper spray for if they plan to shoot every single person who throws punches? What is lower on the threat scale of throwing punches? Bad language? Is the pepper spray and baton just for beating up weak and defenceless people? This is NOT the police force of the US nor the UK.

It takes less time for one to consciously move finger onto trigger than they can possibly make any offensive move.

Whatever, Bill Hickok. All I am saying is that you don't want to be disarmed, not that you must have a finger on the trigger.

You don't have to be a wild-west trick shot to move your finger a fraction of an inch, it's as hard as moving your finger from pressing the "F" key to the "G" key on a keyboard. And what is this disarming nonsense? I'm talking about stopping some thug rapist, not Jason Bourne or some other fictional character who can impossibly snatch loaded guns from people's hands without getting shot.

In the scenario I outlined, the assailant snapping their head as hard as they could would only move the weapon slightly out of battery for a fraction of a second

Luckily, I have an airsoft pistol with a metal slide.

I suggest learning how springs work. The slide won't have enough forward momentum because the spring is almost at it's natural length. Ergo, the "delta x" will be so small that the force applied by the spring will be almost null.

You know about press checks? You pull the slide slightly back to make a visual check and then you force the slide into battery? Or in the AR15, you use the forward assist to make sure the bolt is fully locked. Same principle applies.

I was able to knock the metal slide far enough to cause a failure to extract with a snap of the neck. While I was at it, I could also flip a knife open with one hand.

I can control my balance at my age, thank you.

Point is, never point at someone's head. It's not worth it. You have a ranged weapon and the advantage of surprise to aim. Don't screw it up by going hand-to-hand.

You are talking about an AIRSOFT pistol! That is not a full functioning pistol using browning-short-recoil principal.

Glock, M1911, SIG, Browning HP, etc DO NOT NEED TO BE PUSHED BACK INTO BATTERY! It can only be pushed back a tiny distance, the millimetres before the barrel locks against body. I never said anything explicitly of a recoil-operated pistol. It could be a shotgun, a blow-back operated pistol (Walther PPK), gas-operated carbine or any number of firearms that are unaffected by muzzle jolts.

They have a human shield. I'll take my chances to spare their life, which was the ENTIRE reason I'd ever get involved, that was my objective of intervening not to "kill dat surn of a *****" but to spare someone from a horrific ordeal or murder.

I expect all police officers in all parts of the world to have the training to use firearms accurately in a stressful situation.

We are talking about Europe here.

Our economy is shit. Police officers don't get paid a lot. They might not have the chance to go to a firing range for years. Ammunition is so much expensive compared to the US (several times higher, it would be cheaper to practice with premium self-defense ammo in the US than here with overpriced full metal jacketed El Cheapo rounds.) that police officers don't get paid enough to practice on their own. This was the norm before the economical crisis, I can't bring myself to think that their situation is better right now.

And while they might have some practice with their carry weapon, they might not be with a shotgun. Longer sight radius means more time to aim at close range, specially at extremities.

When it comes to "combat" (hurr durr, I mean actual firefights or riot control, not military) or home defense a shotgun is probably the finest option you have.

When it comes to combat shorter than the actual barrel length of your shotgun, draw a pistol.

Europe? That's monumentally vague. Extending from Portugal to Estonia, from the frozen norths of Norway to the sweltering Islands of Greece. WHICH COUNTRY! You cannot hold every country to utter economic failures like Greece

And where is your source on police not even being trained to shoot their weapons?!!? That's like hiring untrained doctors, a waste of money.

Why is a shotgun the finest choice? Is it the high recoil, the danger of short stroking, or slow fiddly reloads, or what? Things are never that simple, shotgun are great weapons but not without their drawbacks.

Runic Knight dealt with this off topic subject of usama bin laden best. I just made a fairly safe example of a very guilty person who never got any trial.

1. He was not in American soil.
2. He was not an American citizen.
3. Guilty or not for 9/11, he was a wanted terrorist and he was responsible for several deaths and bombings.
4. He was one of the top dogs in an organization that was at war.
5. "Allegedly" he was in a fortified compound with armed personnel - and he might have had explosives or weapons on him.


Sorry for not caring for his death. Did he deserve a trial? Meh. It is war. I know that the US stepped into Pakistani soil to get him, but it's not the same thing as people being sent to FEMA camps or having Predator drones killing American citizens.

No, the problem is you have not addressed why I even brought him up. I brought Usama Bin Laden up as an example of unambiguous guilt even though he never stood trial. This is not about if he deserved a trial, read my SENTENCES, don't just pick up on words like "trial" and assume this is a discussion about if he deserved a trial. The point is he didn't get put on trial, does that mean he is beyond guilt, no.

My issue is you don't care for his guilt, the issue is not whether you care over his death. How you feel about his guilt is relevant to how you can feel about another person who has committed a lesser crime but still not had a trial verdict yet: George Zimmerman.

 

[Treblaine]

Saying that Treyvon had the right to "stand his ground" and beating Zimmerman is the same thing as saying that Zimmerman could have seen a black kid with a hoodie on and saying to himself "I feel threatened!" - and shooting him on the spot.

The difference is the "Stand your ground" law actually exists and the "I feel Paranoid, just shoot" is NOT a law.

 

[ElPatron]

The difference is the "Stand your ground" law actually exists

That's exactly my point. Zimmerman made use of it (he couldn't run away) and Treyvon didn't - he felt threatened and decided to attack without violent provocation.

Starting points. If you get on top of someone and beat him up, he won't be able to reach anything with his weak hand. When it comes to life or death, firearms will be used.

You are able to retain 100% function after a blow to the head. Good. But why should we apply your health condition to Zimmerman, kids being beat up at school, or rape victims?

Does it mean that if I hear someone slipping in the tub I shouldn't intervene because they are probably fine? No, it doesn't. Same applies to self-defense, better safe than sorry. Except you don't have time to be sorry when you die.

The media. The same logic applies to shady contracts with the purpose of fucking people over. Technically they are not "dishonest", the are just lying in a legal way because there is a nanoscopic fine print somewhere. Go figure.

Airsoft. Airsoft pistols that mimic recoil operated handguns do have tilting barrels and lockups. And experts like Travis Hayley do force the slide into battery.

Stress. It's fucking easy to switch from the F to the G, but try doing that with 6 enemies around you. Try to fiddle with a finger while you are under stress and under attack. Plus, thanks for implying AGAIN that my MO would be shooting on sight.

Europe. Portugal is in the gutter, Greece is in the gutter, Spain and Italy are next. I don't need to mention Norway or whatever because police officers there hardly use their service weapons. And yet they are much better trained that in any of the countries I just mentioned.

Shotguns. Recoil? What recoil? If it was a handgun firing 12GA it would fly out of my hand but I am talking about a huge steel barrel, magazine tube, steel receiver and dense polymer stock and pump - plus the lead in the magazine, side saddle and in the sling. I think it's heavy enough to counter recoil. I understand that 3" magnums are not everyone's cup of tea (they can bruise shoulders easily) but your bring a couple of points.

- Recoil - training. Seriously, if you don't train with a pistol don't use it for home defense. Apply the same principle to shotguns because they benefit a lot from training - including faster follow up shots, faster target acquisition, and recoil control.
- Short stroking - again, training.
- Slow reloads - i]Training, training, training.[/i] it's perfectly possible to load 8 shells in less than 6 seconds, or even four seconds. A typical 1911 will have 7+1 or 8+1 magazine capacities, a typical HD shotgun will have a 7+1 capacity of shells that fire several 8.4mm balls. If you need more than that to stop someone, there is a high chance that they are a Terminator.

Osama/Usama Bin Laden. Did I mention he was considered the leader of a terrorist group which is still in a conflict against the United States and was wanted for murder and terrorism before 9/11? And he was hidden in a place he might have guns or explosives near? In the interest of the safety of the operators involved it would be preferable to double tap him in the spot before he had a chance to make the whole complex self-destruct or something.

To my knowledge Zimmerman isn't the head of the KKK so therefore I don't see how Osama's example applies.

 

[Treblaine]

The difference is the "Stand your ground" law actually exists

That's exactly my point. Zimmerman made use of it (he couldn't run away) and Treyvon didn't - he felt threatened and decided to attack without violent provocation.

Starting points. If you get on top of someone and beat him up, he won't be able to reach anything with his weak hand. When it comes to life or death, firearms will be used.

You are able to retain 100% function after a blow to the head. Good. But why should we apply your health condition to Zimmerman, kids being beat up at school, or rape victims?

Does it mean that if I hear someone slipping in the tub I shouldn't intervene because they are probably fine? No, it doesn't. Same applies to self-defense, better safe than sorry. Except you don't have time to be sorry when you die.

The media. The same logic applies to shady contracts with the purpose of fucking people over. Technically they are not "dishonest", the are just lying in a legal way because there is a nanoscopic fine print somewhere. Go figure.

Airsoft. Airsoft pistols that mimic recoil operated handguns do have tilting barrels and lockups. And experts like Travis Hayley do force the slide into battery.

Stress. It's fucking easy to switch from the F to the G, but try doing that with 6 enemies around you. Try to fiddle with a finger while you are under stress and under attack. Plus, thanks for implying AGAIN that my MO would be shooting on sight.

Europe. Portugal is in the gutter, Greece is in the gutter, Spain and Italy are next. I don't need to mention Norway or whatever because police officers there hardly use their service weapons. And yet they are much better trained that in any of the countries I just mentioned.

Shotguns. Recoil? What recoil? If it was a handgun firing 12GA it would fly out of my hand but I am talking about a huge steel barrel, magazine tube, steel receiver and dense polymer stock and pump - plus the lead in the magazine, side saddle and in the sling. I think it's heavy enough to counter recoil. I understand that 3" magnums are not everyone's cup of tea (they can bruise shoulders easily) but your bring a couple of points.

- Recoil - training. Seriously, if you don't train with a pistol don't use it for home defense. Apply the same principle to shotguns because they benefit a lot from training - including faster follow up shots, faster target acquisition, and recoil control.
- Short stroking - again, training.
- Slow reloads - i]Training, training, training.[/i] it's perfectly possible to load 8 shells in less than 6 seconds, or even four seconds. A typical 1911 will have 7+1 or 8+1 magazine capacities, a typical HD shotgun will have a 7+1 capacity of shells that fire several 8.4mm balls. If you need more than that to stop someone, there is a high chance that they are a Terminator.

Osama/Usama Bin Laden. Did I mention he was considered the leader of a terrorist group which is still in a conflict against the United States and was wanted for murder and terrorism before 9/11? And he was hidden in a place he might have guns or explosives near? In the interest of the safety of the operators involved it would be preferable to double tap him in the spot before he had a chance to make the whole complex self-destruct or something.

To my knowledge Zimmerman isn't the head of the KKK so therefore I don't see how Osama's example applies.

A skinny 160lbs teenager bare-fist punching so mildly it doesn't even leave a bruise is not a "life or death situation" that warrants drawing a lethal weapon and using it.

Why should you not intervene on someone slipping and cutting themselves. You don't know how hard they fell. But you know if they haven't even broken the skin more than a slight graze it couldn't have been much of an impact. In fact a single graze on Zimmerman's head is entirely consistent with him falling over, so that danger is GONE.

Airsoft pistols do not function enough like a 9x19mm browning-short recoil pistol to be any way relevant. There are dozens of videos on youtube of "Travis Haley" (not "Travis HAYLEY(sic)") not pushing the slide forward, I can't find any where he recommends you have to do that and nothing suggesting relevant to this case that pressore of a scalp on the gun muzzle would cause it to so severely malfunction it would be a useless club.

Where did these 6 enemies come from? I was explicit in outlining this scenario. There is no fiddling, you move your finger down and squeeze, YOU CANNOT MISS THE TRIGGER! You go on an on about rules of gun use yet any excuse to break one of the golden rules: tiger off trigger till you are actually going to fire. Otherwise you risk a Negligent Discharge and taking a human life unintentionally.

This shotgun as an ideal weapons for civilian self defence needs a lot of training. Training is a cop-out solution. You don't need as much training with a pistol-carbine and 30-round mag.

I have made very clear I am talking about Usama Bin Laden's guilt for involvement in the murder of civilians, not fighting a guerilla war with America.

 

[ElPatron]

You don't know how hard they fell. I can't also tell how hard I fell until I check all of my body. Pain takes quite some time to kick in. I don't know how Zimmerman fell, so I am not going to say his use of a weapon was unjustified. Specially if a "160-lb kid" tried to take his weapon away from him.

There are dozens of videos on youtube of "Travis Haley" (not "Travis HAYLEY(sic)") not pushing the slide forward, I can't find any where he recommends you have to do that

He does so when he does a "press check". You don't need to do slam the slide forward under regular operation.

When you hold a pistol against an object it might not fire. The Springfield XD and 1911s with full length guide rods will fire when pressed against an object since the guide rod acts as a standoff device.

Actually, there are "standoff devices" for sale. The only shooters who need them are gullible enough to think they will ever need to put a gun against someone's body.

Where did these 6 enemies come from?

Modern videogames allow you to play against at least 15 other players in a single server.

Good God, you brought up the subject of videogames, don't start misinterpreting my posts like that.

When I screw up, I panic. I start shooting but usually miss a lot. Specially if I am a sniper who suddenly is surrounded. I put claymores, I start bunnnyhopping and generally doing what people do under stress - fiddle around to do something really simple. Such as switching from F to G.

Airsoft pistols do not function enough like a 9x19mm browning-short recoil pistol to be any way relevant.

Excuse me for the silliness, but I am not going to try that with a real weapon.

You don't need as much training with a pistol-carbine and 30-round mag.

Debatable.

I am for the use of pistol carbines in SD because a lot of people can't handle pistols well but can't handle the recoil of shotguns.

But other than that the extra barrel length doesn't give you that much of an advantage apart from sigh radius - handgun cartridges are generally poor man stoppers.

Shotguns are the best marriage between firepower, energy and not punching holes trough the entire house. Plus, you can easily use different kinds of ammo. Someone living in a big property might need to change from buckshot to slugs if there is a serious home invasion.

So yeah, a pistol carbine is definitely better than a pistol if the shooter can't handle a handgun (or handguns are not allowed for self-defense or some crazy reason). But you still need to train a lot.

I am not saying that a shotgun's shot placement is "forgiving", but a properly aimed shot is going to behave like multiple handgun shots.

I have made very clear I am talking about Usama Bin Laden's guilt for involvement in the murder of civilians, not fighting a guerilla war with America.

And I already stated that criminals have the right to trial since they are still citizens. Bin Laden's killing would have made sense if they had got him before he had left Afghanistan.

In my opinion it can be compared to the SAS storming the Iranian Embassy. 5 out of the 6 terrorists were killed because of the immediate danger they posed.

(not "Travis HAYLEY(sic)")

I blame my spellcheck. I don't know anyone called "Hayley".

 

[Treblaine]

You don't know how hard they fell. I can't also tell how hard I fell until I check all of my body. Pain takes quite some time to kick in. I don't know how Zimmerman fell, so I am not going to say his use of a weapon was unjustified. Specially if a "160-lb kid" tried to take his weapon away from him.

There are dozens of videos on youtube of "Travis Haley" (not "Travis HAYLEY(sic)") not pushing the slide forward, I can't find any where he recommends you have to do that

He does so when he does a "press check". You don't need to do slam the slide forward under regular operation.

When you hold a pistol against an object it might not fire. The Springfield XD and 1911s with full length guide rods will fire when pressed against an object since the guide rod acts as a standoff device.

Actually, there are "standoff devices" for sale. The only shooters who need them are gullible enough to think they will ever need to put a gun against someone's body.

Where did these 6 enemies come from?

Modern videogames allow you to play against at least 15 other players in a single server.

Good God, you brought up the subject of videogames, don't start misinterpreting my posts like that.

When I screw up, I panic. I start shooting but usually miss a lot. Specially if I am a sniper who suddenly is surrounded. I put claymores, I start bunnnyhopping and generally doing what people do under stress - fiddle around to do something really simple. Such as switching from F to G.

Airsoft pistols do not function enough like a 9x19mm browning-short recoil pistol to be any way relevant.

Excuse me for the silliness, but I am not going to try that with a real weapon.

You don't need as much training with a pistol-carbine and 30-round mag.

Debatable.

I am for the use of pistol carbines in SD because a lot of people can't handle pistols well but can't handle the recoil of shotguns.

But other than that the extra barrel length doesn't give you that much of an advantage apart from sigh radius - handgun cartridges are generally poor man stoppers.

Shotguns are the best marriage between firepower, energy and not punching holes trough the entire house. Plus, you can easily use different kinds of ammo. Someone living in a big property might need to change from buckshot to slugs if there is a serious home invasion.

So yeah, a pistol carbine is definitely better than a pistol if the shooter can't handle a handgun (or handguns are not allowed for self-defense or some crazy reason). But you still need to train a lot.

I am not saying that a shotgun's shot placement is "forgiving", but a properly aimed shot is going to behave like multiple handgun shots.

I have made very clear I am talking about Usama Bin Laden's guilt for involvement in the murder of civilians, not fighting a guerilla war with America.

And I already stated that criminals have the right to trial since they are still citizens. Bin Laden's killing would have made sense if they had got him before he had left Afghanistan.

In my opinion it can be compared to the SAS storming the Iranian Embassy. 5 out of the 6 terrorists were killed because of the immediate danger they posed.

I DO know how hard he fell, less hard than I fell when I wasn't slightly dazed I got a worse cut on my head than him.

No one has a right to shooting out of paranoia because they fell on their back. The right to Self-defence is limited to actual threats not imaginary ones. And of course self-defence is limited to actual defence, he can't pursue and antagonise them enough that they'd have a right to self-defence otherwise you then have the contradiction of both parties permitted to use self-defence with inevitable escalation.

The right to Self-defence is rightfully limited as it is supposed to prevent violence not escalate it. It is meant to discourage people starting confrontations. Zimmerman did that by pursuing and accosting this boy without identifying his legitimate intentions.

From the man himself

6:15

"Now I will sling it home, not ride it home, and for VALUE ADDED I will hit the rear of the slide to make sure it is completely in battery"

That is NOT saying it is vital to hit the rear of the slide if it is ever drawn back a bit, he just does it for extra double-sure. No where does he say after pressing the muzzle into something to you have to break grip and hit the rear of the slide.

Panic is precisely the reason you SHOULD keep your finger off the trigger till you are about to fire, if you have 6 antagonists appearing from no where you might want to hold off shooting only if one of them makes an offensive move and use the threat of force IF they attack you. Firing right away in a panic is a good way to provoke them to attack when you could avoid it. Remember, the objective of CCW and self-defence is to save lives, the objective is not to kill your assailant but a possible by product only from their unrelenting, unreasoning and UNJUSTIFIED threat.

The important thing about pistol carbines is not the barrel length but the inclusion of a fire stock for a vertical fore-girp and a ful shoulder stock with a cheek weld and the ability to mount and effective optic. A 16 inch barrel is superfluous but hardly a major negative, but short-barrel-rifle licences are tricky in many jurisdictions though might be worth the effort. The thing is some of the hotter .40S&W round from a carbine are very powerful, heavy and fast. The problem with shotguns is they are all or nothing, if you miss it will take a while to recover from the recoil and cycle the action, while with a semi-auto carbine you can immediately go back. It's also very important where someone in your home might be attacked then they might be deliberately or inadvertently used as a human shield. Shotguns are still very effective, and were apparently favoured by prison guards patrolling as even though buckshot spread out hugely they could usually

You can put someone on trial for a crime even if they are not a citizen and were not even in the country where the crime was committed. And even beyond any particular law, the issue of Just, Justice in the moral sense, is he guilty of murder?

 

[ElPatron]

I DO know how hard he fell, less hard than I fell when I wasn't slightly dazed I got a worse cut on my head than him.

Like I said multiple times before, in hindsight it's easy to make split second choices.

No one has a right to shooting out of paranoia because they fell on their back.

But people can start throwing punches from paranoia? No.

From the man himself

6:15

"Now I will sling it home, not ride it home, and for VALUE ADDED I will hit the rear of the slide to make sure it is completely in battery"

That is NOT saying it is vital to hit the rear of the slide if it is ever drawn back a bit, he just does it for extra double-sure. No where does he say after pressing the muzzle into something to you have to break grip and hit the rear of the slide.

Because he is not pressing the muzzle against anything. With a press check, you pull back enough for the slide to have enough momentum, but people like to be safe because there are always flukes. When you do it with an AR15, you use the forward assist to make sure the bolt is locked.

When you push the muzzle against something and the guide rod doesn't prevent the slide from moving, then the disconnecter might engage.

Panic is precisely the reason you SHOULD keep your finger off the trigger till you are about to fire,

And I never said the finger must be on the trigger, I am simply saying that aiming at the torso and having a standoff are preferable to having to fiddle with the finger under attack.

I don't think there is a chance to miss from 1m away.

carbine snippage

I don't think I would shoot in a case of human shield, anyway. I know people have limits, specially under pressure. I might have the confidence to do so if I was a SWAT officer.

You can put someone on trial for a crime even if they are not a citizen and were not even in the country where the crime was committed.

I don't even know what to say, the law in America makes you lose your rights if you are a terrorist.

It would have pissed me off if Bin Laden was a bank-robber or something. But he was involved with terrorist organizations - it's like saying that Al Zarqawi shouldn't have been bombed.

Targeted killing is the intentional killing, by a government or its agents, of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person who is allegedly taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention.

 

[Treblaine]

I DO know how hard he fell, less hard than I fell when I wasn't slightly dazed I got a worse cut on my head than him.

Like I said multiple times before, in hindsight it's easy to make split second choices.

No one has a right to shooting out of paranoia because they fell on their back.

But people can start throwing punches from paranoia? No.

From the man himself

6:15

"Now I will sling it home, not ride it home, and for VALUE ADDED I will hit the rear of the slide to make sure it is completely in battery"

That is NOT saying it is vital to hit the rear of the slide if it is ever drawn back a bit, he just does it for extra double-sure. No where does he say after pressing the muzzle into something to you have to break grip and hit the rear of the slide.

Because he is not pressing the muzzle against anything. With a press check, you pull back enough for the slide to have enough momentum, but people like to be safe because there are always flukes. When you do it with an AR15, you use the forward assist to make sure the bolt is locked.

When you push the muzzle against something and the guide rod doesn't prevent the slide from moving, then the disconnecter might engage.

Panic is precisely the reason you SHOULD keep your finger off the trigger till you are about to fire,

And I never said the finger must be on the trigger, I am simply saying that aiming at the torso and having a standoff are preferable to having to fiddle with the finger under attack.

I don't think there is a chance to miss from 1m away.

carbine snippage

I don't think I would shoot in a case of human shield, anyway. I know people have limits, specially under pressure. I might have the confidence to do so if I was a SWAT officer.

You can put someone on trial for a crime even if they are not a citizen and were not even in the country where the crime was committed.

I don't even know what to say, the law in America makes you lose your rights if you are a terrorist.

It would have pissed me off if Bin Laden was a bank-robber or something. But he was involved with terrorist organizations - it's like saying that Al Zarqawi shouldn't have been bombed.

Targeted killing is the intentional killing, by a government or its agents, of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person who is allegedly taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention.

It's not paranoia, he WAS out to get him, it's just the kid had no way of knowing what his reason was. Zimmerman was extremely provocative and aggressive chasing after a frightened kid and he was foolish not to consider this kid was striking back in self defence. He seemed to lack to an extreme sense of critical self-appreciation, he didn't consider how his actions would be seen by this individual as criminal.

I know, but you Travis Haley as a source saying banging the back of the slide was necessary, in support of your claim that pressure on the end of the muzzle would jam a short-recoil-operated pistol in a catastrophic way.

If you are aiming at the torso with finger on the trigger but aren't intending to fire, then some jolt or shock and you'll unintentionally shoot them.

I meant human shield in the sense they are being assaulted but not being actively held up in front of them, like they are on the floor wrestling with them to get a hold of a knife, I'd be to worried a stray pellet will hit my ally while I could get a single bullet right in them with more confidence it'll not over-penetrate or fly off in a random direction.

It's not just America's Law, It's a little thing called the "Geneva Conventions". The Geneva conventions say that Prisoners of WAR don't have to be put on trail just for being enemy combatants, they can be held indefinitely, until the hostilities between both sides cease where all prisoners must be returned. However, if the prisoners have broken the Laws of War, like murdering civilians then they will be put on trial for a permanent sentence. As is the case with that marine that went crazy and shot those afghans, he is on trial in the same military system that the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray are being tried in.

Do you think that back in World War 2 every German soldier that was captured was put on trial? No, they were herded into camps where they waited till Nazi Germany surrendered and the return of prisoners on each side is arranged. But the German POWs who committed war crimes would not just be released from POW camps, The Allies would put them on trial for sentences many decades long or life sentences or even sentence them to death.

I think many prisoners of Guantanamo Bay will stay where they are if all they did was attack US Troops, that is a guerilla war, something even America practices as with their Green Beret task force.

Terrorism may be tried in either a civilian or military court. It depends were they operating more like a guerilla force to murder civilians, or more like a clandestine role posing as civilians.